Posted on 12/27/2007 7:27:57 PM PST by canuck_conservative
The latest estimate of the growing costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the worldwide battle against terrorism -- nearly $15 billion a month -- came last week from one of the Senate's leading proponents of a continued U.S. military presence in Iraq. "This cost of this war is approaching $15 billion a month, with the Army spending $4.2 billion of that every month," Sen. Ted Stevens (Alaska), the ranking Republican on the Appropriations defense subcommittee, said in a little-noticed floor speech Dec. 18. His remarks came in support of adding $70 billion to the omnibus fiscal 2008 spending legislation to pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, as well as counterterrorism activities, for the six months from Oct. 1, 2007, through March 31 of next year. While most of the public focus has been on the political fight over troop levels, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reported this month that the Bush administration's request for the 2008 fiscal year of $189.3 billion for Defense Department operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and worldwide counterterrorism activities was 20 percent higher than for fiscal 2007 and 60 percent higher than for fiscal 2006. Pentagon spokesmen would not comment last week on Stevens's figure but said their latest estimate for monthly spending for Iraq, Afghanistan and the war on terrorism was $11.7 billion as of Sept. 30, the end of fiscal 2007.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Thank you for posting that. I look forward to reading it.
Spoken like a true lib! :-) After all, it's the government's money, not ours!
QUESTION: How much is national security, not having to fight the terrorists on our own soil/blocks, being alive and not beheaded, stopping the Islamo fascists now, rather than having to tackle a monstrous/disastrous problem later.
sorry
If true libs are the ones who give a damn about national security and think a dirty bomb going off in the middle of an American city would ruin my whole day, then I am a true lib
To put things in historical perspective, in 1944, U.S. defense spending was 36.0% of GDP.
The American Economy during World War II
The U.S. GDP for 2006 was $13.13 Trillion.
As a percentage of current U.S. GDP, the $180 billion (in 2006 dollars) per year cost of the Iraq War is just slightly over 1.3% of current U.S. GDP.
What are the strategic stakes involved in Iraq?
Nothing less than giving up military control of 70% of the World's know oil reserves to Islamist fanatics that are actively pursuing nuclear weapons.
Buck for buck, considering the strategic stakes involved, the cost of the Iraq War is a bargain.
America is equivalent to a family with $100,000 of post tax money per year to spend that is being asked to spend $1,300 per year to have oil remain available to themselves and the rest on their Western community neighbors.
If America believes that is a bad economic investment, America has reached the point where it is simply too dumb to survive in the Real World.
Spoken like a true lib! :-) After all, it's the government's money, not ours!
What will you do with all your worthless pieces of paper with pretty pictures of U.S. Presidents on them in a United States of America without access to oil?
Paper your walls with them as Germans did in the 1920's.
See Post 107.
Some people seem to know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
How much has Canada done to aid his death or capture?
The world has long benefited from the American man fighting wars all over this world, and we get trashed for not doing it “your” way.
Whatever.
Wonderful, thank you
“And theater renovations.”
And NAFTA Superhighway funding
“The world has long benefited from the American man fighting wars all over this world, and we get trashed for not doing it “your” way.”
I guess everybody thinks the world is run by Burger King so they can have it their way.
“So glad we have President Bush in there, being a fiscal conservative and keeping the government small and spending in check. </SARCASM>”
Oh, we’re screwed. No doubt about it. You and I and every other tax-paying American that foots the bill for all of this fol-der-al free-for-all that is our current CONGRESS.
But, unless I’m mis-reading my Pocket Constitution, (given to me IN PERSON by Warren E. Burger on my Class Trip to Washington, D.C.) ‘The President’ (and that would be ANY of them since George Washington) can’t spend dime-ONE without a MAJORITY of Congress approving. Did you happen to see the last budget passed? I don’t think there are enough pixels left on the web to post a chart of that one, LOL!
But...inquiring minds want to know; where have you been? Out “voting your conscience” at the National Level while IGNORING the CongressCritter in Your Own Back Yard who takes your hard-earned dollars and hands them off to the Federal Level? *SMIRK*
So? Quit whining and get busy in your OWN Back Yard. :)
Really? Paul voted for the NAFTA Superhighway?
Then you are, with all due respect, hopelessly naive, with no real, understanding of the threat we're dealing with.
However, recall that the Administration told us it would cost <$100 each....
No, I don't recall anything of the sort. Citation, please.
Accepting Sec. Rumsfeld's resignation earlier is one way we could have saved lives and money, by not letting the insurgency take hold before admitting it was there (and by recognizing the mission had changed from offensive combat to counterinsurgency and the forces/stragegy/tactics had to change correspondingly). The wanton waste in the way we threw money around to villages is another--villages became experts at soaking us by sabotaging our own efforts because we'd throw more dollars their way the worse condition they were in. Etc.
You know what's really great, though? How evewry other war we ever fought went really well from beginning to end. I mean, McClellan's term in the Civil War and the Kasserine Pass in WWII were just clean as a whistle.
Seriously, now that we're winning you want to complain about the cost? Good grief.
“He who tries to defend everything in the end defends nothing.”—Frederick the Great
Thus the advantage of offense, countering the advantages a defense can provide. And mobility in defense can offset some of those advantages.
Regardless, I think defending our border isn't too much to ask, if we are truly serious about defending our country.
Thank you FRiend, that’s very helpful.
;) Anytime.
Check your Constitution (and English and Elementary Logic books..and the federal laws*) again... the President proposes a budget under the 1921 Budget and Accounting Act. Later in the process, appropriations also face a Presidential veto.
Where it takes both Congress and the Executive to spend, either could stop it, or at least make an effort that could be overridden.
Out “voting your conscience” at the National Level while IGNORING the CongressCritter in Your Own Back Yard who takes your hard-earned dollars and hands them off to the Federal Level?
Not at all. Despite my efforts, however, President Bush was quite helpful in getting a Democrat to take over the historically Republican seat of my district last time around.
*Disclaimer: IANAL.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.